Interesting video in the respect that he has become dissatisfied with the current "metaparadigm," but is still clinging to it in order to attempt to explain a new metaparadigm (hence the continual references to physics). Seems to be in the exclusionary phase, where he points out the problems with the existing theory in hopes that if enough of it is erased from consciousness, the new paradigm will poke through one of the holes.

For the most part, Russell is equating consciousness to the same concept as Dewey Larson's motion. Both have the same conceptual problem... consciousness is not composed of space and time, but neither is motion. Larson puzzled physicists with his idea of "motion without anything moving." Motion has aspects of space and time, just as he describes with the photon having manifestation as 186000 miles and 1 second.

Seems his Universe of Consciousness is rather analogous to Larson's Universe of Motion. The big difference is that Larson also proposes a paradigm to describe how the perturbations in consciousness manifest.

Perhaps the problem is not so much it being the wrong metaparadigm but the fact we are using a metaparadigm (just throwing it out there)
Just saying, we are forgeting one main paradigm in the equation, the paradigm that says "to understand the universe, the quantum and even consciousness we have to learn. Perhaps the opposite is true, that it is not a case of thinking our way there or conceptualizing it but a case of seeing it for ourselves. If we are to un-learn everything we know, effectively stripping consciousness down to its pure form, perhaps only then may we see the most fundamental property of existence.

One of the big lessons the Reciprocal System teaches IS the reciprocal relation between things. If you've got an opposite, then you still have the same paradigm... just a different perspective on it.

I've watched a number of these videos now, and they all seek the same thing--a new paradigm--but have not found a new basis for it. I suspect because of all the social programming that we're put through from birth, makes it VERY hard to think outside the existing paradigm. It is also interesting to find that a lot of people WANT a 2012 disaster, just to shake things up to the point where the old paradigm fails, and a new one has the opportunity to present itself.

Larson broke my paradigm, years ago, when I had to consider that "light is still--it is everything else that is moving!"